26 - Thetichigan Daily - Crackinke Code - Tuesday, Februal6, 1999 0 0 a The Michigaailv -, Cracking1 . . r rrv rirrvrrrbww c"vrrJ yr v... r.'_."b.. _'. WHAT IS THE CODE? The University, MSA examine Code of Student Conduct implementation on campus t Regents prepare to listen to reviews By Katie Plona Daily News Editor This week, when the eight members >f the University Board of Regents pub- lically discuss how well the procedures )f the University-wide policy are work- ig, it will bring more than six months f Code review to an end. Throughout the University and the Vichigan Student Assembly's separate eview processes, many administrators md students have hoped to draw more tudent interest to the Code and make :he document better known. Still, many students are left in the iark - many times a result of their own ipathy or a result of little exposure to he Code. So, what is the Code? The Code is the University's internal Jisciplinary system, based on a set of val- .is -- including dignity, diversity, safety md honesty - the University enforces to :reate a scholarly environment. The University can discipline students :an be disciplined under the Code for a number of violations, such as physically >r sexually harming another person, mis- ising alcohol and other drugs or tamper- ing with University property. They can receive sanctions ranging from educational projects to expulsion, although fewer than 15 students have been suspended or expelled under the Code, through 1998. The Code is intended to be educational in nature and less legalistic than state or federal stat- ies, Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford said. The Code was drafted out of the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which served as a tem- porary discipline policy from 1993-96. "The regents asked us to come up with a code that was more simple and less legalistic;" Hartford said. That was :he task of the 1995 all-student commit- tee that drafted what would later become the Code, she said. Sean Esteban McCabe, who now heads the Office of Student Conflict Resolution that oversees the Code, was one of eight students who drafted the original policy. "It was a complete redrafting," McCabe said. "The intent was to define standards for our community based on shared values.' The student drafting committee for- warded its policy to Hartford, who modified it and handed it over to the regents, who enacted the new policy in January 1996. Since then, the University has processed more than 200 Code cases consisting of 615 alleged violations. Two of the most common types of alleged violations fall under the cate- gories of "stealing, vandalizing, damag- ing, destroying or defacing University property or the property of others" and "physically harming another person including acts such as killing, assault- ing or battering." Reviewing the Code When the regents adopted the Code in January 1996, they scheduled the 1998 review. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution staff completed the first part of the three-phase review in May. During the first phase, the office's staff evaluated the effectiveness of the Code process. For the second part of the review, Hartford commissioned a nine-person group of administrators, faculty members and students to perform a University- wide review of the Code process. The Code Implementation Review Committee, which was chaired by Career Planning and Placement Director Simone Himbeault Taylor, working since the summer months to compile data and put together its report, which Hartford then received in October. "It is going to provideta snapshot of the University opinion that we were able to garner," Taylor said during the review process. To get a representative sample of University opinions, the committee facilitated focus groups of administrators, faculty and students. During the focus sessions, people could comment anonymously on how the Code has been implemented. Reviewers targeted groups of random students through telephone surveys in the second phase. They also sent letters to students who had been accused of violating the Code, asking them how well - in their opinions - the Code process worked. During the Code review panel's week- ly meetings, Taylor said, its members left their personal feelings at the door. "We are making every effort to make it very objective," she said. "It does not reflect our point of view." The third phase of the Code review process began in November and con- sisted of an outside analysis by consul- tants from peer universities. Hartford said she asked representatives from Northwestern University, Dartmouth University and the University of Virginia to serve as review consultants. The team of consultants had access to all material from the first two parts of the review process. It was able to inter- view members of the University com- munity to conclude with a comprehen- sive report about the effectiveness of the Code's implementation process. To wrap up entire review, Hartford then compiled all three reports into one to present to the regents. The regents will use the report as an informational tool to decide whether to change the Code's implementation. Hartford said she removed herself from the actual work of the review groups so she could objectively make up the final report. "I expect that there will be recom- mendations for some change" of the Code process, Hartford said. The regents must approve all changes to the Code. MSA, the faculty's governing body and University administrators are the only entities that can propose amend- ments to the board for consideration. In addition to the University's official review, MSA conducted its own review. MSA member Olga Savic, a Public Policy second-year student who served on both the MSA review committee and the official University group, said the students' review, lead by assembly mem- bers, looked at the content of the Code - not simply how it is implemented. Savic said it is not enough to ask how well the Code is being implemented when some students don't even know what the Code is. "What we want to do is a little bit more fundamental," she said. Members of the MSA group attended ABOVE: si Students protest in the ' Regent's Plaza In September LEFT: Students participate In a f lecture on campus. FILE PHOTOS campus organization meetings to encourage students to take a critical look at the Code and become involved in the review process. "We don't want to present anything from a one-sided perspective because there are so many ideas out about" the Code, Savic said, adding that MSA wanted to hand the regents a report it can say truly represents University stu- dents opinions about the Code. Assembly members mailed their report to the regents before the board's December meeting. Students who want more information about the Code or how the process works can contact the Office of Student Conflict Resolution at 936-6308 or on the Web at http://umich.edu/~oscr Public records of Code cases can be viewed in the office upon request. -Editor's note: This article originally ran in the Oct. 12, 1998 edition of The Michigan Daily MSA Code review pleases many regents, may be source for potential changes By Michael Grass and Jaimie Winkler Daily Staff Reporters The University Board of Regents is scheduled to hear several reviews on the Code of Student Conduct at its meeting this. Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford delayed the presentation of the review of the Code of Student Conduct in January, to give the regents additional time to review information and form their own opinions. Members of the Michigan Student Assembly will present their review of the Code to the regents Thursday. Many regents said they were pleased with the report MSA mailed to them in December and for- mally presented at the regents meeting Jan. 21. Regent Kathy White (D-Ann Arbor), whom MSA members met with in January, said she is apprecia- tive of the effort MSA put into its Code review. "I'm looking forward to working with them in the future," White said, adding she "was very impressed with the thoroughness of the comments." Other members of the board shared White's views. At the January regents meeting, Regent Laurence Deitch (D-Bloomfield Hills) said he was pleased with MSA's review, adding that it might be the source of potential changes to the Code. "I think it forms the basis to make the Code bet- ter," Deitch said. He added that he wants "the Code to be student driven" Some board members agreed that students are essential for the Code process to work. "ThesCode can't work without the students,' White said. The student review was conducted because MSA members thought the scope of the University review committees should not only include Code imple- mentation but a full review of the Code document. The Code implementation review was suggested by the regents when the Code was drafted in 1996. Maynard said MSA's suggestions and their review process provided the most conclusive information. "On a positive side, there are a lot of people from all different directions looking at the Code of Student Conduct," Maynard said. "I think there is a lot of commonalty" in the issues different review committees are concerned with she said. One of the more interesting findings of the MSA review, Maynard said, was the fact that not many students know their rights under the Code and are not familiar with the arbitration and sen- tencing processes. "When you don't understand something, it seems like a negative thing" Maynard said. Regent David Brandon (R-Ann Arbor) said he doesn't remember specific rules for student con- duct from his days as a student. "I graduated from Michigan and I don't remem- ber realizing there was a Code," Brandon said. Maynard said she is in favor of increasing cam- pus awareness by releasing brief reports of Code cases, while protecting names and specific details. "I would always want to protect someone's pri- vacy," she said Brandon, who was elected to the board in November, said he believes the Code should not fall under the board's authority. "I don't believe this is something the regents should be involved in," Brandon said, adding he The Fleming Administration Building houses the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. "was surprised that it showed up on the regent's radar screen. "I do not think the regents have gotten involved in those Codes,' Brandon said, referring to the fact that the University's Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn cam- puses have separate codes but the Ann Arbor code is the only one being review by the regents. . "I don't see why (the regents) should be involved in the Ann Arbor code,' Brandon said. Although the regents have the authority to change the amendments that may be proposed by MSA or University review committees, Brandon said he would not interfere with changes agreed upon by administration, faculty and students. l ::f r rn MSA begins talks to amend Code ANATOMY OF A CODE CASE Complaint Filed i Qn humy eevie ) A closer look Complaint filed: Complaints may be filed by any student, faculty member or staff member or by a third party. Complaints must be submitted to the Resolution Coordinator in writing within six months of the alleged violation. RC can waive the six-month limitation. Preliminary review: RC reviews complaints, determines if behaviors can be handled under the Code. If not, the complaint is referred to the University or Ann Arbor community. investigation: RC contacts potential witnesses and requests reports. Information is used to determine if the accused student can be charged under the Code. Complaint dropped: if investigation does not produce sufficient evidence, RC notifies the witness that the complaint has been dropped. Charge(s): Accused student receives letter charging a potential Code violation. Letter summarizes allegations and establish a time to meet and discuss charge(s). RC meeting: RC explains resolution process and provides opportunity for student to read the complaint. Student may choose to admit or deny allegations and iay file written responses. RC, student discuss options for resolving charge(s). Mediatios: Voluntary participation. Purpose is to help parties reach workable settlement. Student may choose a University or non-University Mediator (neutral person). Arbitration: Arbiter(s) reviews and listens to information presented by RC, accused student and witnesses. Sanctions recommended if student found in violation of code. Student may choose an arbitration with a student panel or a resolution officer. Review by Dean of Students: Arbitration outcomes reviewed by dean. Dean may accept or modify recommendations of arbiter(s). Notice of Outcome: Accused student and complaining witness receive notice of outcome. Appeal: Appeals may be filed in writing by the witness or student within 10 academic days. Grounds for appeal are limited. Review by Vice PAit VP may accept or modify the appeals board recommendations. Emergency usp i:f actions pose immediate danger to University community, the VP or a designee may immediately suspend the student pending a meeting. By Jewel Gopwani Daily Staff Reporter The Michigan Student Assembly's Student's Rights Commission has officially started negotiations with Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford to amend the Code of Student Conduct. MSA's efforts to change the Code began in late September, when the assembly charged SRC with the responsibility of constructing recom- mendations for the Code. SRC spent four months holding forums and conducting almost 1,000 anonymous surveys to obtain a sense of the campus' awareness of the Code. In December, SRC finished writing its report on the Code and informally presented the review to the University Board of Regents at its meeting on Dec. 18, 1998. SRC formally presented the mate- rial to the regents on Jan. 21. It was offered with an external report, which includes examinations of code-amending processes at Northwestern University, Dartmouth University and the University of Virginia and an internal report which encompasses a self-evaluation, both collected by Hartford's office. The review focuses on SRC's find- ings from its surveys and the com- mittee's recommendations regarding amendments to the Code. "We want to simplify the code, increase publicity for it and make it less painful for students to go through this process," SRC chair Brian Reich said. That.afternoon, Reich said, SRC also received feedback from regents regarding the committee's report. The meeting went "surprisingly well," Reich said. "It seems that (University) President (Lee) Bollinger and Regent (Rebecca) McGowen (D-Ann Arbor) were very interested in the process." Reich also said SRC has received encouragement from individual regents. Regent Olivia Maynard (D- Goodrich) sent Reich a personal note of support. "They actually appreciate the work that we do," he said. SRC members met with Hartford the afternoon following the Jan. 21 regents meeting to discuss tangible changes to the code. After meeting, Reich said Hartford was "as open as we can expect." He said Hartford and the SRC have distinct points of agreement and disagreement. "We agree that OSCR (Office of Student Conflict Resolution) doesn't have enough money and that the Code needs to be FILE rPHOT Michigan Student Assembly Vice President Sarah Chopp and President Trent Thompson preside over a December assembly meeting. Tf by Dean O11:cm - clearer," Reich said, adding that the areas where SRC and Hartford dis- agree mainly include specific word- ing arrangements in the Code. Now, after four meetings between the SRC and Hartford to deliberate amendments to the Code, Reich said, they have "started to reshape the Code in a big way" SRC has also met with OSCR direc- tor Sean Esteban McCabe to discuss changes. McCabe has been "sharing good examples with us, of things that support our report:' Reich said. At Thursday's regents' meeting, Reich said SRC members hope to hold a question and answer session about the MSA report with regents. In addition to communication with administration, Reich said, "We will continue our student forums and con- tinue collecting student information." Reich said SRC hopes to continue polling students about the code at this semester's MSA elections. SRC would like to have administra- tion approve changes to the code around March or April, Reich said. -Diagram courtesy of the Ofice of Student Conflict Resolution